On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:17:22 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 13:37:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

(...)

>> But I already knew there are printers in the market that direct print
>> to PDF (as well as options 2/ and 3/ are also possible). I did not
>> asked about that. I asked what *you* were speaking/referring to when
>> you talked about "PDF printers".
>
> Your multiple choice quiz had
>
> > 1/ A physical device (printer) with physical PDF interpreter
> > on it (PDF add-on card)?
>
> and
>
> > Because until now I have not seen a thing like "1/" . . , .
>
> Looks like I misunderstood you.

No, you read it right.

The printers that I'm aware about their PDF capabities used system 2/
instead 1/, that is, a "software" (driver/firmware) to do the transform
from job input to PDF output. I'm unsure about how the HP printer you
mentioned does the PDF job, internally.

> Anyway: a PostScript printer has a PostScript interpreter; a PCL printer
> has a PCL interpreter; a PDF printer has a PDF interpreter. They accept
> print jobs sent directly to them in the supported language.

And that's the key. No transformations are needed, no necessity for
interpreting the input, it's direct. When the printer lacks from PCL6 or
PS or PDF interpreter you're missing that capability.

Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
not, just PCL6 and PostScript.

>> Side note: do you known what's the required/recommended memory to
>> directly print to PDF? And what happens with PDF v1.7, will you have to
>> buy a new module for supporting the new upcoming standards? >:-)
>
> I've no idea, really. The two links I supplied mention 0.5 GB and 1,0
> GB.

That's the stock memory that comes with the printer (500 MiB) and the
maximum allowed (up to 1 GiB). Those are very "high" numbers not
available for the vast majority of the printing devices.

Anyway, want I wanted to say is that if PostScript required a good amount
of memory so the job outputs quickly, PDF can even require even more. Not
funny...

>> > No. I mean taking the link you already have
>> >
>> > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat
>> > ,
>
>> There are no technical reasons (neither what's the real gain for users)
>> listed there but how to start using the new filter facility within
>> CUPS.
>
> We'll have to disagree on that, then

There's little room for disagreements here; "quod scripsi, scripsi" :-)

>> > reading it as a whole and following up on how the system was
>> > developed. The third and fourth paragraphs of Roger Leigh's post
>> > might help with any searches.
>>
>> I've found another doc comparing for options:
>>
>> http://www.adobe.com/print/features/psvspdf/
>>
>> But I'd say the author is not "neutral" ;-)
>
> Possibly not. But he should be expected to know what he is writing
> about.

Sure, but there can be another interests behind the words.

>> > Some of us have been doing precisely that (using and testing) for
>> > three or four years. When you get to Squeeze or Wheezy you can join
>> > in too.
>>
>> All my printers support PostScript directly, why should I ignore that
>> fact?
>
> You shouldn't. Just keep sending PostScript to CUPS and it will be
> printed.

That's indeed my plan :-)

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv11f8$108$14@dough.gmane.org

On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 15:45:44 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:17:22 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> > Anyway: a PostScript printer has a PostScript interpreter; a PCL printer
> > has a PCL interpreter; a PDF printer has a PDF interpreter. They accept
> > print jobs sent directly to them in the supported language.
>
> And that's the key. No transformations are needed, no necessity for
> interpreting the input, it's direct. When the printer lacks from PCL6 or
> PS or PDF interpreter you're missing that capability.

Are you really sending everything as Postscript directly to the printer?
Nothing goes through CUPS? Could it be we have different ideas of
'directly'?

> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
> not, just PCL6 and PostScript.

No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
statement that

> . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.

so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.

Incidentally, nobody sends PCL6 directly to a printer,


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120729112922.GK6660@desktop

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:29:22 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 15:45:44 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:17:22 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > Anyway: a PostScript printer has a PostScript interpreter; a PCL
>> > printer has a PCL interpreter; a PDF printer has a PDF interpreter.
>> > They accept print jobs sent directly to them in the supported
>> > language.
>>
>> And that's the key. No transformations are needed, no necessity for
>> interpreting the input, it's direct. When the printer lacks from PCL6
>> or PS or PDF interpreter you're missing that capability.
>
> Are you really sending everything as Postscript directly to the printer?
> Nothing goes through CUPS? Could it be we have different ideas of
> 'directly'?

Sometimes I need to overpass CUPS (or the Windows printing sub-system)
and directly send a PS file to the printer, it depends on the job. I have
faced situations were the CUPS queue hung when printing big and complex
files while using the "raw" facility went without a glitch.

Of course, this is not a common situation for the "joe" user.

>> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
>> not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
>
> No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
> statement that
>
> > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>
> so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.

No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300 for
having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)

> Incidentally, nobody sends PCL6 directly to a printer,

I think "nobody" sounds too wide... maybe "it's not usual" but when you
only have a PCL6 capable printer and one file fails to print with the
usual printing system (File → print → printer driver), I assure you will
try with any option that is available.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv3ga9$vb5$7@dough.gmane.org

On Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 14:11:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:29:22 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> > On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 15:45:44 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> >> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
> >> not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
> >
> > No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
> > statement that
> >
> > > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
> >
> > so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.
>
> No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300 for
> having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)

Don't ask me. I don't understand it either! Not for sending a PDF file
directly to the printer, anyway.

> > Incidentally, nobody sends PCL6 directly to a printer,
>
> I think "nobody" sounds too wide... maybe "it's not usual" but when you
> only have a PCL6 capable printer and one file fails to print with the
> usual printing system (File → print → printer driver), I assure you will
> try with any option that is available.

A reasonable point. The print file would have to be already formatted in
PCL to get a useful output when sent directly to the printer. Convert
with Ghostscript, I suppose. Having just done exactly that successfully,
I'll have to withdraw the claim of 'nobody'.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120729153940.GO6660@desktop

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:39:40 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 14:11:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

>> >> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed
>> >> do not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
>> >
>> > No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
>> > statement that
>> >
>> > > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>> >
>> > so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.
>>
>> No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300 for
>> having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)
>
> Don't ask me. I don't understand it either! Not for sending a PDF file
> directly to the printer, anyway.

(...)

It was a rethoric question, no need to answer. Of course I know "why":
because a PostScript capable printer is a "time-proof" solution that has
been working since years... Can't say the same for PDF printers as they
are too recent :-)

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv67nu$ltk$8@dough.gmane.org

On Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 15:03:26 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:39:40 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> > On Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 14:11:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
> >> >> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed
> >> >> do not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
> >> >
> >> > No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
> >> > statement that
> >> >
> >> > > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
> >> >
> >> > so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.
> >>
> >> No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300 for
> >> having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)
> >
> > Don't ask me. I don't understand it either! Not for sending a PDF file
> > directly to the printer, anyway.
>
> (...)
>
> It was a rethoric question, no need to answer. Of course I know "why":
> because a PostScript capable printer is a "time-proof" solution that has
> been working since years... Can't say the same for PDF printers as they
> are too recent :-)

It was a rhetorical answer. I don't know what rules should be followed
when one is encountered so cannot offer you direction.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120730163334.GX6660@desktop

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/07/12 20:30, green wrote:

> I do wish there were more hardware manufacturers with a real interest in
> making their products work well with Linux. HP is the best I have seen:
> http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/recommended.html

I have had years of success with a Xerox 6300DN. Nope, it's not cheap
(at the time, costing around £700) but the manufacturer provides PPD
files for a huge range of colour lasers including this, paper handling
has been faultless and print quality is very good indeed. Not quite up
to the level of a good inkjet on photos, but close enough.

It's fast too.

And very heavy.

So, unless you want nice print outs /and/ a broken back, don't get one

- --
Steve Dowe

Warp Universal
http://warp2.me/sd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlAWuzEACgkQff0deVwNl4jvtgCfZdYKZDw3Yn Eqp0MXZiX8IxI2
HhAAnRXiS/PlE2I5ZhQM7TiK01HM1CS2
=uxiL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5016BB3D.7030102@warpuniversal.co.uk">http://lists.debian.org/5016BB3D.7030102@warpuniversal.co.uk

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:33:34 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 15:03:26 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:39:40 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 14:11:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I
>> >> >> managed do not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
>> >> > statement that
>> >> >
>> >> > > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>> >> >
>> >> > so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.
>> >>
>> >> No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300
>> >> for having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)
>> >
>> > Don't ask me. I don't understand it either! Not for sending a PDF
>> > file directly to the printer, anyway.
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> It was a rethoric question, no need to answer. Of course I know "why":
>> because a PostScript capable printer is a "time-proof" solution that
>> has been working since years... Can't say the same for PDF printers as
>> they are too recent :-)
>
> It was a rhetorical answer. I don't know what rules should be followed
> when one is encountered so cannot offer you direction.

I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter as the
default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as good nor as
simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies have always showed
different needs than users and these "jumps" are seen differently when
you have to hold them as user or as admin.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv6e1v$ltk$16@dough.gmane.org

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:51:11PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter as the
> default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as good nor as
> simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies have always showed
> different needs than users and these "jumps" are seen differently when
> you have to hold them as user or as admin.

The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you are
using CUPS, *THEN* you are automatically using "a PDF filter paradigm"
because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**.

That was my reading of it. Please, someone correct me if my reading of
Roger's post is incorrect.

The discussion of whether it **actually is** superior/"more robust" is
irrelevant, and better discussed with the CUPS developers. :-)

--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731074313.GC17427@tal

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:43:13PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:51:11PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> > I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter as the
> > default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as good nor as
> > simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies have always showed
> > different needs than users and these "jumps" are seen differently when
> > you have to hold them as user or as admin.
>
> The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you are
> using CUPS, *THEN* you are automatically using "a PDF filter paradigm"
> because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**.
>
> The discussion of whether it **actually is** superior/"more robust" is
> irrelevant, and better discussed with the CUPS developers. :-)

This is pretty much the case.

I'll address a few of the points in this thread here to save writing
many separate replies:

1) What is a PDF printer? It's a printer you can submit PDF jobs to
directly. Whether this is implemented in software/firmware/hardware
is irrelevant--it just needs to be able to accept it and print it.
This is completely orthogonal to having a PDF workflow.

2) Having a PDF workflow does not require a PDF printer, any more than
having a PostScript workflow (as before) required having a
PostScript printer. Since CUPS (and LPRng) implement printing
through filters including ghostscript, one can convert any input
format to any output format. The only difference is that the
intermediary format is now PDF rather than PostScript.

3) PostScript is a crap intermediary format. You can't do page
accounting without processing the entire file; PDF can just give
you a page count. It can have unbounded complexity and consume
lots of CPU and disc; and if the pipeline has multiple steps,
you have to do this multiple times; and again on the printer, if
it's a PostScript printer. You can't do accurate colour matching;
PDF supports embedded colour profiles. You can't easily do
rearrangement of the input for n-up, rescaled, or reordered for
book printing. These are all things that matter, and which PDF
makes a great deal easier, faster, and more robust. PostScript
is a *lossy* intermediary format in consequence--you lose
information and get lower quality output if the input made use of
any features not representable in PostScript.

3) PostScript is a crap input format. Generating it is a pain; you
have to output text PostScript, i.e. your program has to generate
a program. It's hard to do. It's hard to use fonts, it's hard to
use graphics. It's hard to do lots of things. And it lacks modern
graphics primitives such as gradient meshes, opentype fonts,
transparency, etc. which just aren't representable. Contrast with
PDF: we have a multitide of free software libraries which generate
PDF, making it simple to do. PNG and JPEG can be embedded directly,
without having to be encoded and ballooning the filesize, again with
attached colour profiles.

4) PostScript has the document structuring conventions (DSC), which
are text comments (%%) in the code; but it's optional, and can be
incorrect and buggy itself. PDF has /real/ structure, meaning
that it's possible to reliably and simply process the document.

5) Most applications used to output PostScript for printing. They now
mostly output PDF. There's a reason for that, linked to (2-4)
above. Lots of professional graphics software (e.g. Adobe
illustrator, inkscape) uses PDF as either the native format or a
supported graphics format. It's not just for output. Even older
applications such as LaTeX have long been PDF by default (pdflatex,
now xelatex etc.); DVI and PostScript are still supported, but the
vast majority of users use a PDF workflow. As does R. It's simply
better on all counts.

6) PDF contains tons of junk features. That's right, but they are
completely irrelevant for printing and general use in the world
outside Adobe. Printing just uses the sensible subset actually used
for drawing (obviously).

One could argue that having a programming language as a file format is
useful. But the main use case is to construct things such as
Mandelbrot fractals during printing. The only thing this does is to
anger all the other users of your printer as it takes hours to print
a single page. The reality is, very little software took advantage
of it; it's far easier just to precalculate such things and have a
slightly bigger filesize in this special case. Are there any examples
of software outputting PostScript containing code any more complex than
abbreviated macro expansions? The reality is no, and the number of
people writing PostScript by hand is vanishingly small. For all but
odd esoteric cases, PDF is objectively better. If you're writing an
application which needs to print, you're going to pick PDF, because
it's what all the libraries support, and it's objectively better.

In the professional world, printing has all been PDF-based for quite
some time now. For some of the reasons outlined above, and probably
others I don't know about. The changes in CUPS are just the Linux
printing ecosystem just catching up with that reality. And it
really *is* better. While CUPS is now owned by Apple, the reality is
that it would have happened eventually anyway--PDF is already the
predominant input format; making it the intermediary format is just
a logical consequence of that.


(Anecdote: I do not have fond memories of editing buggy PostScript to
fix the DSC comments so that tools like psnup, psselect etc. could work
with it. This is due to the fragility of the tools in coping with
incorrect comments! In contrast, you never have such a situation with
PDF unless the file is actually corrupt.)


Regards,
Roger

--
.'`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
`- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120731093455.GI25141@codelibre.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120731093455.GI25141@codelibre.net